Maybe I don't understand "vote chess" here, but I would think the method you use is probably sound. But, then again, I'm not a team player
Vote chess or is it consultation chess
Sort:
Jun 11, 2011
0
#2
Luckily we don't have guys like grischuk skewing the choices by rating category. Move 8 top recommendation would be "offer draw" lol
I enjoyed the years of otb team chess I played, and for several different clubs. I am finished with it though as team play has annoying aspects unique to team play that I am no longer willing to tolerate.
I have never liked vote chess as I feel its pretty senseless......
Jun 11, 2011
0
#5
I would have thought a vote chess game without discussion would be mindbogglingly dull. In response to NM Reb, I would say it is the discussion, and what the players might get from it, that gives vote chess a reason to exist, as opposed to merely trying to win the game (which is the objective of the discussion, of course).
Jun 11, 2011
0
#6
ReasonableDoubt wrote: Vote chess is a rough equivalent of being the captain of the Titanic as it's about to crash into an iceberg. You're on a sinking ship surrounded by idiots losing their heads, and there's nothing you can do to convince them to take a course of action that has any realistic chance of survival. The other nice touch is that the same idiots that are losing their heads are the people that set it on the collision course in the first place.
It's traditional to rearrange the deck chairs when in this situation.
Jun 11, 2011
0
#7
artfizz wrote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote: Vote chess is a rough equivalent of being the captain of the Titanic as it's about to crash into an iceberg. You're on a sinking ship surrounded by idiots losing their heads, and there's nothing you can do to convince them to take a course of action that has any realistic chance of survival. The other nice touch is that the same idiots that are losing their heads are the people that set it on the collision course in the first place.
It's traditional to rearrange the deck chairs when in this situation.
Reasonabledoubt, I had to laugh out loud. So true. Remember though that the 1997 movie Titanic earned a fortune. If you like disaster movies you may like vote chess.
I found with vote chess in groups the higher rated players dominate and the lower rated don't enjoy playing as they feel bullied to play the move of the higher rated player. In fact in one group it is always one players move he may as well play himself !
Jun 12, 2011
0
#9
Storm19611 wrote:
I found with vote chess in groups the higher rated players dominate and the lower rated don't enjoy playing as they feel bullied to play the move of the higher rated player. In fact in one group it is always one players move he may as well play himself ! I could not agree more.
Jun 13, 2011
0
#10
I must say that I have participated in vote chess games where I have rarely found a chance to improve on the suggestions of other players and others where I have have a major share in the analysis and found both interesting. It really is worthwhile trying to understand the analysis of a better player, if you want to improve. A lot of people make the psychological mistake that because in its simplest form, chess is an argument between two people, they should always disagree with everyone, author or teammate or whatever.
I think your right storm the problem is with high rated players they are very much about their own rating and how much better they are so you should shut up and listen as they know it all they probably do but they should stay clear of vote chess as this is a team game and all comments should be included and no member of the team should be in fear of making a suggestion or comment but unfortunately this is not the case and usually two or three strong players end up controlling the whole game and even when they have led their team into defeat it seems hard for them to accept any sort of criticism and usually end up blaming it on drive by voters when they have usually controlled the whole voting pattern.
Maybe chess.com could make vote chess really interesting by weighting the votes so that the lower rated players say 1200 and less carry three votes to 1 vote for the above 2000 and maybe the 1200 -1600 carry 21and1/2 votes to 1 and 1600 -2000 1 and a half votes to one this would really balance the whole game out and make it really fun as the higher rated players would have to help the lower rated players and lobby them or risk loosing three votes per low rated player
Jun 13, 2011
0
#12
merchco wrote:
I think your right storm the problem is with high rated players they are very much about their own rating and how much better they are so you should shut up and listen as they know it all they probably do but they should stay clear of vote chess as this is a team game and all comments should be included and no member of the team should be in fear of making a suggestion or comment but unfortunately this is not the case and usually two or three strong players end up controlling the whole game and even when they have led their team into defeat it seems hard for them to accept any sort of criticism and usually end up blaming it on drive by voters when they have usually controlled the whole voting pattern.
Maybe chess.com could make vote chess really interesting by weighting the votes so that the lower rated players say 1200 and less carry three votes to 1 vote for the above 2000 and maybe the 1200 -1600 carry 21and1/2 votes to 1 and 1600 -2000 1 and a half votes to one this would really balance the whole game out and make it really fun as the higher rated players would have to help the lower rated players and lobby them or risk loosing three votes per low rated player
ROFL
I propose extending this approach to public elections. Everyone should have to answer a quiz about political issues, and those who prove they know the least should be given 10 votes, while those who know the most should be given 1 vote. This will help randomise the results of elections, rather than giving an unfair advantage to those who are the best informed, most rational, and manage to communicate their reasoning to those who are able to understand it.
Elroch wrote:
merchco wrote:
I think your right storm the problem is with high rated players they are very much about their own rating and how much better they are so you should shut up and listen as they know it all they probably do but they should stay clear of vote chess as this is a team game and all comments should be included and no member of the team should be in fear of making a suggestion or comment but unfortunately this is not the case and usually two or three strong players end up controlling the whole game and even when they have led their team into defeat it seems hard for them to accept any sort of criticism and usually end up blaming it on drive by voters when they have usually controlled the whole voting pattern.
Maybe chess.com could make vote chess really interesting by weighting the votes so that the lower rated players say 1200 and less carry three votes to 1 vote for the above 2000 and maybe the 1200 -1600 carry 21and1/2 votes to 1 and 1600 -2000 1 and a half votes to one this would really balance the whole game out and make it really fun as the higher rated players would have to help the lower rated players and lobby them or risk loosing three votes per low rated player
ROFL
I propose extending this approach to public elections. Everyone should have to answer a quiz about political issues, and those who prove they know the least should be given 10 votes, while those who know the most should be given 1 vote. This will help randomise the results of elections, rather than giving an unfair advantage to those who are the best informed and most rational.
Yeah, that oughta show them stinking ________!
Jun 13, 2011
0
#14
Elroch wrote:
merchco wrote:
I think your right storm the problem is with high rated players they are very much about their own rating and how much better they are so you should shut up and listen as they know it all they probably do but they should stay clear of vote chess as this is a team game and all comments should be included and no member of the team should be in fear of making a suggestion or comment but unfortunately this is not the case and usually two or three strong players end up controlling the whole game and even when they have led their team into defeat it seems hard for them to accept any sort of criticism and usually end up blaming it on drive by voters when they have usually controlled the whole voting pattern.
Maybe chess.com could make vote chess really interesting by weighting the votes so that the lower rated players say 1200 and less carry three votes to 1 vote for the above 2000 and maybe the 1200 -1600 carry 21and1/2 votes to 1 and 1600 -2000 1 and a half votes to one this would really balance the whole game out and make it really fun as the higher rated players would have to help the lower rated players and lobby them or risk loosing three votes per low rated player
ROFL
I propose extending this approach to public elections. Everyone should have to answer a quiz about political issues, and those who prove they know the least should be given 10 votes, while those who know the most should be given 1 vote. This will help randomise the results of elections, rather than giving an unfair advantage to those who are the best informed, most rational, and manage to communicate their reasoning to those who are able to understand it.
Hilarious! The jokes are flying today at Chess.com
This is in regard to vote chess on Ponziani Power. We are a team and sometimes a lower rated player will ask a question and he will get a very good answer. If a higher rated player comes up with a move--that player explains why he thinks his move is best. The discussions on our vote chess
are very good and involve both low ranked and high ranked players. We use the chess diagrams to show what we think is the best move and likely follow ups. If someone suggests a move--we discuss it and sometimes we will use that move.
It is a format where just about everybody can learn a lot.
On another chess site two forms of "vote" chess are offered, the pure form and the consultation variety offered here. Most teams on chess.com prefer that members consult with each other via the comments section. Being a lazy person I just look up the recommendations of the highest rated players, and bingo, there's my move! Maybe I'll form a group that specialises in vote chess but with consultation discouraged. It could be called the Drive-by Vote Group with members only encouraged to analyse for at least 3 mins. But I doubt it would be competitive.